Harden says he will look over an article by Schenker soon; he wonders whether
Brahms or Rosenthal will contribute anything on Bülow to Die Zukunft; and he encourages
Schenker to send him more articles in the future.

Harden agrees in principle to Schenker's publishing elsewhere some material on
which Harden had some claim; he advises Schenker that he has no following among the audience
of Die Neue Review; he has heard nothing from Brahms or Rosenthal about contributing
something about Bülow to Die Zukunft.

Harden urges Schenker to press Brahms [for material on Bülow]; he thinks that
d'Albert will benefit from Schenker's article about him in Die Zukunft; he reports cordial
impressions of Humperdinck from Cosima and Siegfried Wagner; and he asks whether an article
he wrote was any good.

Harden encourages Schenker to write articles on the string quartet and on
[Johann] Strauß and Humperdinck, but not on Brahms. — He explains why he lost his temper
with Schenker in an earlier letter (see OJ 11/42, [19]). — He urges Schenker to procure some
corresondence between Rosenthal and Rubenstein for publication in Die Zukunft; and he casts
aspersion on Die Zeit.

Harden tells Schenker that a submission from d'Albert would be welcomed; he
encourages Schenker to send him a copy of a previously published lecture which he will
consider publishing despite usual practise; and he asks whether Brahms or Rosenthal will
contribute any Bülow letters to Die Zukunft.

Schenker makes a first approach to Rudorff; it concerns interpretation of a
passage in Chopin's Ballade No. 2, Op. 38; — He asserts his belief in consulting -- and
teaching students to consult -- only original sources, and in the Urtext
principle.

Responding to Grunsky's request, Schenker gives his assessment of Bruckner's
music. First exploring common ground between him and Grunsky, he then offers "technical
reasons" why he regards Bruckner as "possessing minimal powers of invention," therefore
cannot call him a "master." In the process, he compares the "Komponisten" (composers) of the
present day unfavorably with the "Tonsetzer" (tonal craftsmen) of the past.

Grunsky acknowledges receipt of Schenker's Beitrag zur Ornamentik and two
letters; — He recognizes that he and Schenker hold "opposite views" on Bruckner's music but
welcomes Schenker's openness to discussion; — He counters Schenker's arguments on Bruckner's
approach to form, rhythm, theme, and musical character; — He admits his own "antipathy"
toward the music of Brahms.

Ecstasy is an end in itself in Bruckner's music, producing artificiality. Cf.
Beethoven, Brahms. — Cites instances in Bruckner's Seventh Symphony; his music is
technically backward. — Posterity will see both Bruckner and Berlioz as of lower status than
Haydn, Brahms, and other masters.

Rudorff's poor health is restricting his activities. — He praises Schenker's
Harmonielehre, especially its views on the church modes. — He also endorses Schenker's
condemnation of Wagner's musical influence.

Schenker, on receipt of the score of a Rudorff choral work, praises its
textural clarity and melodic articulation, comparing them favorably to the writing of the
current generation. — He reports the success of his own recent theory works, and inroads
made into the Vienna Academy for Music and Performance Art.

Schenker responds the the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde's invitation to give a
lecture or series of lectures on a topic of his own choosing; commenting on the reasons behind
the proposal, and the style of lecture expected, he expresses his willingness, proposes a
subject, and states his fee.

Weisse reports his renewed interest in counterpoint through the rereading of the
first volume of Schenker's Kontrapunkt; he has also come across Bussler's Freier Satz and has
heard mainly positive things about Ernst Kurth's Linearer Kontrapunkt, a book which he will
order and report on to his teacher.

Waechter understands Schenker's wish not to pre-publish his Art of Performance in
article form, and hopes that Schenker will provide a universal solution to the performance
problem; explains the editorial control of Der Merker, encouraging Weisse to submit his two
articles to it; expresses pleasure that he has procured from Halm reviews of Schenker's
Harmonielehre and Kontrapunkt 1; is unable to send his Musikkritik der Gegenwart at present.

Having attended for the first time a concert conducted by Furtwängler, Schenker
congratulates him on his achievement then, proclaiming him a "counterweight" to the present [in
his opinion inadequate] generation of conductors, and heir to the Mahler mantle. Schenker
comments on Viennese concert-goers and their fickleness. — He commends Moriz Violin to
Furtwängler, in case the latter can provide an introduction to Hausegger.

In this direct reply to Schenker's previous letter, OJ 6/7, [2], Violin expresses
his dismay that some of the performing material for keyboard concertos by C. P. E. Bach,
including original cadenzas by Schenker, appear to have gone missing. — He reports on his
growing number of pupils, on the acquisition of a piano for his apartment, and on Hamburg's
extremely conservative musical tastes.

Deutsch offers to provide several books to Schenker instead of two or three hardback copies of the
"Moonlight" Sonata edition, and then details several misprints and factual errors in Romain Rolland's biography
of Beethoven.

Invoice from Deutsch's bookshop (Seidel'sche Buchhandlung) for works by Mozart and Brahms, and a
book by Hildebrand, which also shows a credit remittance for one copy of Schenker's facsimile edition of
Beethoven's "Moonlight" Sonata.

Schenker reports the imminent publication of Tonwille 3, and some new publishing
ventures, including a (new) edition of music by C. P. E. Bach and an "Urlinie Edition" of the
Short Preludes by J. S. Bach.

Having settled into country life in the Tyrol, Schenker returns to his work, in
particular to the ongoing battles with Hertzka over the publication of Der Tonwille. He asks
Violin’s opinion about a subscription plan for a periodical that would appear four times a year
(instead of the current two), and hopes that his friend might spare a few days to visit him in
Galtür.

Schenker describes his efforts to make Der Tonwille more widely read, through its
distribution by his pupils and its display in music shop windows. He needs more help from pupils
and friends with the dissemination of his work, but complains that Hans Weisse has let him down
on more than one occasion by not writing about his work. Finally, he asks Violin’s advice about
whether he should accept an invitation to speak at a conference in Leipzig, or whether he should
simply stay at home and continue to write.

Dahms has devoted a chapter of his Musik des Südens to "genius" in which he
asserts its absoluteness and the gulf between genius and mediocrity. — He concurs with
Hertzka's judgement of Furtwängler as a "coward"; In his quest for success, the latter has
compromised his belief in genius by pandering to Schoenberg. The Korngolds are coming to
Rome in August.

Halm offers to send two of his books in return for Schenker's Opp. 109, 110, 111;
he discusses the role of improvisation in his own music; he seeks "corporeality" in music, and
its absence in Brahms troubles him; argues the case for Bruckner; asks Schenker to choose a
passage exhibiting non-genius in his or Oppel's music and discuss it in Der
Tonwille.

In response to matters raised by Halm in two previous letters, Schenker discusses
figuration, distinguishing between that which works only on the surface and that which arises
out of the middle and background, drawing on primal intervals. He also concedes that he heard
Bruckner improvising, and criticizes it adversely. He refers to Reger, and outlines plans for
forthcoming volumes of Der Tonwille.

Asks Halm to send some of his chamber music to Rudolf Pollak, with prospect of
performance of the A major string quartet. —Deplores current situation over Sofie Deutsch
stipends. —Reports difficulties with UE and intention to change publisher.

In the light of an exchange of letters with UE, Schenker suggests that the new
publication have a new title (Die Urlinie) but that the old typeface and format be retained.
He suggests that the new periodical should include articles on each of the Chopin etudes and
the four Brahms symphonies, and on symphonies by Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert and Haydn, from
all of which book-length studies could subsequently be made.

Schenker, repeating some of the points made in earlier letters, continues to give an account of
Hertzka's dishonest dealings with him over Der Tonwille and asks Violin to give him an accurate count of the
subscriptions that Max Temming paid for in the distribution of free copies of the journal to university music
departments. He asks if Violin suspects that anti-Semitism lurks behind some of the critical notices of his recent
concert. Finally, he mentions an article in Die Musik by Paul Bekker that numbers Schenker among the hermeneutists;
the same issue contains a review of Der Tonwille, by Max Broesicke-Schon, disputing the supreme genius of the
canonic composers.

Weisse asks Schenker to look at some suitable frames for Hammer's portrait of
him. He reports that several autograph manuscripts of Brahms are being put up for sale, of
which that of the cadenzas Brahms wrote for Beethoven's Fourth Concerto are particularly
interesting. He quotes from a letter by Gerald Warburg, indicating that Schenker's latest
theoretical concepts are being taught at Damrosch's music school in New
York.

Schenker agrees to to teach Violin's pupil Agnes Becker twice a week, as soon
as she is ready to come to Vienna. He reports Furtwängler's disillusionment with modern
music, and notes that Weingartner and Julius Korngold have expressed similar sentiments. He
is not optimistic that humanity in general will truly understand the classics, which
underscores the important of his (and Violin's) mission.

Schenker enquires about Violin's trio concerts with Buxbaum and van den Berg
went and ask if Hammer's portrait has arrived. He reports on the possible difficulties in
putting together the first Meisterwerk Yearbook, on account of the numerous music examples
and separate Urlinie graphs, and summarizes the contents of the second
Yearbook.

Schenker has, mistakenly, sent Weisse a copy of Reger's "Telemann" Variations
(Op. 134) instead of the "Bach" Variations (Op. 81) which he had lent him. Weisse asks what
is holding up the publication of the first Meisterwerk Yearbook, and suggests that Schenker
might write about Bruckner in the next one. A Brahms analysis would help strengthen his
position against his opponents. He also recommends that Schenker discuss a work that is less
than perfect, and cites Eduard Mörike's "Um Mitternacht" as an example of a poem whose
opening verses are beautiful but which deteriorates in meaning and poetic
quality.

Finding his name mentioned adversely in Meisterwerk 1, Hindemith writes that
he has always striven to fulfill in his own work the fundamental truths that are stated in
Schenker's books. He encloses two scores, and is convinced Schenker will find the Urlinie in
them.

Replying to Violin's previous letter, Schenker expresses surprise about (Egon)
Pollak's enthusiasm for C. P. E. Bach's Double Concerto. He also expresses uncertainty about
whether to accept an honor from the Academy of Arts and Science in Vienna. A translation and
adaptation of part of his Counterpoint, vol. 2, has been prepared; and Herman Roth's book on
counterpoint has also been published. He sends little Karl a picture of himself, and leaves
space for Violin's sister Fanny to add a short greeting.

Following a brief description of a recent illness, Violin replies to
Schenker's question about accepting the Order of Merit from the Viennese Academy of Art and
Science and advises him to accept it. He realizes that staying in Hamburg would be bad for
his son's long-term health and has spoken to Artur Schnabel about the possibility of moving
to Berlin or Frankfurt. An influential man in Frankfurt is the father-in-law of Paul Klenau;
Violin knows of Klenau's respect for Schenker, and asks his friend to write to Klenau in
support of his application for a post there.

Cube reports progress in his class and private teaching, performance of his
compositions, his forthcoming lecture; outlines plan for an exhibition in Duisburg to celebrate
Schenker's 60th birthday; has heard nothing of Hoboken's "Aufruf."

Schenker sympathizes with Cube over the hostilities he faces; contrasts his own theory to the
approach of Riemann. Has arranged for Hammer portraits to be sent to Cube [for bookshop exhibits], and directs him
to biographical information about himself. Describes the trials of his 20s, which were surpassed by the difficulties
he faced later with publishers and organizations. Upholds Joachim and Messchaert as models of performance art, and
speaks of his contact with Brahms. Asks whether Cube will be joining him in Galtür in the summer.

Hoboken encloses his analytical study of Brahms's Intermezzo, Op. 117, No. 1,
and raises several technical matters. — He reports on his building project, and responds to
Schenker's refusal, in OJ 89/3, [7], to continue acting as intermediary with Vrieslander. —
He encloses a check for his lesson fee.

Schenker reports on two concerts at which Hans Weisse's Octet was performed
for the first time. Furtwängler was enchanted by it, Schenker was impressed by the quality
of the voice-leading in general, the construction of the finale movement (a passacaglia) in
particular. He was touched to see that a pupil of Weisse's, Dr. Felix Salzer, had subvented
the cost of the rehearsals and concerts, and the provision of food and drink for the
audience; this he compared with Antony van Hoboken's reluctance to help him with the
publication costs of his recent work.

Hoboken compares performances of Beethoven's Missa solemnis by Furtwängler and
Klemperer. — He has experienced pains in his arm, and has taken recuperative lessons from
Rudolf Breithaupt. — He details work he has been doing for the Photogramm Archive, work of
his own, and that for Schenker.

Schenker summarizes the achievements and ambitions of several of his pupils
and followers (Albersheim, Cube, Vrieslander, Roth, Jonas, and Weisse), noting that Weisse
is the most ambitious of all of these though he is not completely at home in the new theory.
He fears that something might go wrong at Weisse's forthcoming lecture at the Central
Institute for Music Education, and hopes that Violin will listen with a sharp ear. Weisse
will give a trial run of the lecture at the Schenkers' apartment.

Furtwängler liked his essay; Jonas describes his lectures at the Conservatory;
the situation with Einstein over publishing his review of Meisterwerk 3; asks about
permission to consult Brahms's arrangement of Saul.

Jonas reports on his visit to Berlin, where he failed to meet with Furtwängler; —
discusses Brahms-Handel Saul and Beethoven Op. 109. — He has heard about the Fünf Urlinie-Tafeln
from Hoboken and Salzer; — discusses plans for publishing his Das Wesen des musikalischen
Kunstwerkes. — Has received books from Alfred Einstein.

Furtwängler was prevented from visiting Schenker in August by having to go
into the Cottage Sanatorium, Vienna. He hopes to see Schenker during the winter, and asks
whether he might like to do the ceremonial address for the Brahms
Centenary.

Cube reports on his current state of mind, his work on a Bach graph (commenting
on a graph by Angi Elias), promises to send an article on Schenker that has appeared in the
Frankfurter Zeitung, on the difficulties of the Schenker-Institut, and on Moriz and Karl
Violin.

Josef Marx has expressed interest in class-use of the planned school edition
of Schenker's Harmonielehre; Schenker suggests Jonas's Einführung be placed before Marx; a
second proposal for an English translation of Harmonielehre has come in.

Jonas still has no response from Hoboken re: his Einführung; encloses four
essays; reports on forthcoming article, his teaching and advocacy of critical editions,
planned radio lectures and performance, and other work.

Van Hoboken is willing to advance 600 Mk for the Einführung; Jonas inquires,
in that regard, after the plan to reprint Schenker's Harmonielehre, indicating that he had
previously prepared a reformulation of that work for teaching purposes; — he alludes to
introductory lectures to Furtwängler concerts, and the Handel-Brahms Saul
project.

Schenker thanks Hoboken for money transferred, for contact with Dlabač, and
for information about Jonas. — Oktaven u. Quinten may be published within three weeks. —
Schenker has warned Kalmus about paper quality and lithographer. — He expresses reservations
about Joseph Marx for inability to understand his work. — Weisse has 90 students enrolled
for his course [at Mannes School]; and Furtwängler deems Schenker the "great music
theorist."

Jonas acknowledges OJ 5/18, 25. — If agreement can be reached on his
Einführung, he hopes for publication in the fall; — he has read the two articles by
Schenker; — he sends a recent article on Photogrammarchive; — he will be in Vienna on
16th.

Schenker expresses pleasure that the seminar is grasping the "truth of the
genius's art," and comments that it is a Jew who has been called upon to reveal this truth. — He
reports Vrieslander's indignation that Furtwängler's address [to the Brahms centennial] did not
refer to Schenker. — The letter makes heavy use of Latin phrases.

The Hobokens will not come to Reigersberg; — He re-sends his two songs for
further comment; — He sends a booklet by Gottfried Benn; — They are isolated in
Partenkirchen, and are distressed at events in Germany; — Alfred Cortot has visited the
Photogram Archive and expressed an interest.

Schenker acknowledges receipt of money transfer; — alludes to Jonas's forthcoming
book and two other books now in progress about his work; — refers to a review of his Oktaven u.
Quinten that misunderstands the nature of Brahms's collection.

Schenker sends article [by Citkowitz]. — In response to Jonas's quoting from a
Jewish lexikon, he refers to the sermons by Cardinal Faulhaber, and writes of his pride in
being Jewish but in having assimilated thoroughly enough to establish favorable relations
with the Catholic church, antisemites, and the news media. — Implying a parallel between
himself and Jesus, he offers his "monotheistic theory of music" as "a new message to the
world from the Jews." — He has no copy of his Syrische Tänze; — writes of the work's
history.

Publication of Jonas's book has been delayed until June 22; — he may give a
lecture in conjunction with Edwin Fischer; — his Beethoven sketches article is in press; —
Hoboken is considering Jonas's proposed elucidatory edition plan in conjunction with a
putative publication by the Photogram Archive.

Schenker praises Jonas's book highly; gives Hoboken's current address; —
Furtwängler has written a recommendation for Moriz Violin, who would like go to Jerusalem;
asks whether Vrieslander and Oppel are subscribers. — Comments on Bayreuth and
Wagner.

Acknowledges OC 9/34, [42], and its contents; comments on the "youth of today" – organic
connection is the best thing for them; asks publisher of Schäfke book. Once Der freie Satz is in
print, he will give his mind to the continuation of the Urlinie-Tafeln. Schenker's name is included in
the Spanish Enciclicopedia universale.